MATT 2:34 "This generation will not pass away" ... What did Jesus mean?

[Sinthesis]

( please note The Jewish leaders of the day used the Romans to kill Jesus yet as Christian we know He gave His life)

Fitting then who Jesus used to eliminate the Jewish leadership of that generation, isn't it?;)

 

[reba]

So much of the 'Revelation type" theology is based out of emotions, common sense plays no part.


Re: MATT 2:34 "This generation will not pass away" ... What did Jesus mean? Just exactly what He said.

 

[felix]

"This generation" refers to the people in Jesus time who witnessed 70 AD. However, 70 AD is only the beginning of the prophecy.

(Luke 21:24) "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Jesus basically said, Jerusalem will fall which that generation will witness. He also prophesied it will be recaptured.

We know Jerusalem was trampled by Gentiles from September 7, 70 AD to June 10, 1967 AD.

• September 7, 70 AD is in Julian Calendar.
• June 10, 1967 AD is in Gregorian Calendar.

No of days Jerusalem was trampled by Gentile = 692778 days (calculation link).

Even today, Old/East Jerusalem captured in 6 day war is not recognized internationally and it is still considered illegal. Anyway, the point is, Old Jerusalem is no longer trampled by Gentiles.

Just to add, only after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, the below verse will be fulfilled.
(Luke 21:27) "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

 

[Butch5]

I simply don't know how to begin to address the really faulty, absurd logic here. I guess we start with this claim:

Why? The "Baby Boom" Generation spans a period of time in which people were born from 1946 to 1964. That's according to the U.S. Census Bureau. So while the Baby Boom Generation is referred to as a single generation, not everyone was born into it or died out of it at the same time. Yet it is still referred to as a single generation!

The problem with your ridiculously narrow definition of generation is that you have incorrectly defined it as "all the people living at the same time." The dictionary actually defines it this way:

the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time: the postwar generation.

So not everyone born into a generation lives and dies at the same time.

Absurd and faulty Logic? My ridiculously narrow definition of generation? I've incorrectly defined it as all people living at the same time?

I believe it was you who defined it as all people living at the same time

Stormcrow post 226---Note that this word is used 43 times in the NT and only once does it not refer to a group of people living at the same time.

I've been arguing all along that that is not what Jesus meant.

Now we come to this:

The second meaning of the Greek word "genea" means "kind." But that is not what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 23 and 24 when He said "this generation", as I have demonstrated in earlier posts. There are good and evil people in every generation, but Christ's words were directed to His enemies (Matthew 23) and to His disciples (Matthew 24) and were meant to find fulfillment while both friend and foe were still alive: before that generation had passed.

It's not a reference to the type of people He was addressing rather it was about the time in which both His enemies and His disciples would see His return: their generation.

And now, having reread this response, I can't believe I needed to write it.

You acknowledge that the word can mean kind and then dismiss it. You posted a quote from Eusebius who uses it as kind speaking of the Jews.

Stormcrow post 226 ---

Here, those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem, as if holy men had entirely abandoned the royal city itself, and the whole land of Judea; the divine justice, for their crimes against Christ and his apostles, finally overtook them, totally destroying the whole generation of these evildoers from the earth.

Eusebius Pamphilus, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 85-87.

You even underlined the portion where Eusebius calls them a generation of evildoers. Let me ask, where the believers destroyed with that generation of evildoers that Eusebius speaks of. If not then he obviously is using the word as a kind of people and not those living at the time.

This use by Eusebius is just what I said in my inital post.

Here we have Jesus using generation in reference to the Scribes and Pharisees.

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?(Mat 23:29-33 KJV)


Just out of curiosity, if you think this all took place among those living at that time, what was the sign of the Son of Man?

 

[Elijah674]

Much of the prophecy was a double prophecy. Eccl. 3:15. And Matt. 24 applies to the question asked.
Matt.24

[1] And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
[2] And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
[3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the [end of the world]?

It sure is understood by the disciples that they asked several questions. Even Christ's verse ...
[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and [[then shall the **end come.]]

And what question did the 'END COME' remark address above in ibid 3?

And did it come in anytime yet? No. So this is a required Eccl. 3:15 documented repeat as well! For we read Rom. 10.. (AD 60)
[16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
[17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
[18] But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

and

Col. 1 (AD 64)
[23] If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and [which was preached to every creature which is under heaven;] whereof I Paul am made a minister;

And if Christ has not came as verse 14 documents, then you just flat out do not understand why! God REQUIRES double prophecy in most instances! Even check out Gen. 41:32!

Two parts to the Bible. Both times it finds a 'spiritual rejection' from His ex/own.
Matt. 23:38 is truthfully tabulated that these ones have no king but Caesar, on to the virgins fold of Rev. 3:9 again as what? From the execution of Christ to the re/crucifixion of these of the Heb. 6:6 ones. (and on & on)

From the OT Test on, we see just one Commandment broken, has the breaking of them all as seen in Exod. 16:6 & 28 & which will again repeat the James 2:10's 666 testing.

--Elijah

 

[Sinthesis]

"This generation" refers to the people in Jesus time who witnessed 70 AD. However, 70 AD is only the beginning of the prophecy.

(Luke 21:24) "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Jesus basically said, Jerusalem will fall which that generation will witness. He also prophesied it will be recaptured.

We know Jerusalem was trampled by Gentiles from September 7, 70 AD to June 10, 1967 AD.

• September 7, 70 AD is in Julian Calendar.
• June 10, 1967 AD is in Gregorian Calendar.

No of days Jerusalem was trampled by Gentile = 692778 days (calculation link).

Even today, Old/East Jerusalem captured in 6 day war is not recognized internationally and it is still considered illegal. Anyway, the point is, Old Jerusalem is no longer trampled by Gentiles.

Just to add, only after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, the below verse will be fulfilled.
(Luke 21:27) "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

It seems that if you believe Jerusalem is no longer being trampled, then you must believe the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. If so, then what does it mean that the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled?

 

[reba]

Old Jerusalem is no longer trampled by Gentiles.

The muslims who hold the temple mount are not gentiles?

 

[JLB]

There is nothing written in the NT about a "soon coming Temple!" Therefore, it's an absurd question!

There are three temples mentioned in the NT: the temple in Jerusalem where priests performed twice daily sacrifices, the temple of Jesus' body, which was destroyed and raised in three days, and the bodies and lives that comprise the temple of those who believe in Christ, His church!!! There is no mention anywhere of a third, physical, earthly temple in Jerusalem!

In fact, the Bible says this about New Jerusalem:

I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. Revelation 21:22 (NASB)

NO TEMPLE! NONE!!! You've fallen for a lie!

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.


I guess you can call The Apostle Paul a liar.


Revelation 11:2

But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

3 1/2 years of the great tribulation!


I guess you can call The Apostle John a liar also.


JLB

 

[reba]

How about some folks see things differently.. Lets not be using liar in a round about way Ok...

 

[JLB]

How about some folks see things differently.. Lets not be using liar in a round about way Ok...

Here's what the man said -

NO TEMPLE! NONE!!! You've fallen for a lie!


The "lie" that I have fallen for have come from Paul, Daniel, John ...


JLB

 

[felix]

The muslims who hold the temple mount are not gentiles?

The court outside is given to gentiles by God and it no longer belongs to Israel where al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock stands.

(Rev 11:1-2) Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot [for] forty-two months.

 

[reba]

The Roman government thought of them selfs as gods... and they took the temple.

They besieged the temple the burned it. They killed thousands upon thousands of Jews. Folks who had traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover...

This has been recorded as history... Just as some big events like WWII, are not recorded in Scripture does not make untrue.

 

[felix]

The Roman government thought of them selfs as gods... and they took the temple.

They besieged the temple the burned it. They killed thousands upon thousands of Jews. Folks who had traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover...

This has been recorded as history... Just as some big events like WWII, are not recorded in Scripture does not make untrue.

Titus reportedly refused to accept a wreath of victory, saying that the victory did not come through his own efforts but that he had merely served as an instrument of God's wrath.

Ref: Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6.29

 

[reba]

Not picking on anyone ya have to post the , be nice, request when ya get here and see the heat is rising....

Personally JLB you have been very polite....

 

[Stormcrow]

Just out of curiosity, if you think this all took place among those living at that time, what was the sign of the Son of Man?

The destruction of Jerusalem!

I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. Jeremiah 4:26 (KJV)

And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?' Matthew 24:3 (YLT)

The sign of the presence of God in Jeremiah 4:26 is the same sign of the presence (parousia) of Christ in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation.

Just as the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar was the sign of the presence of God in judgment upon Jerusalem in 586 BC (Jeremiah 4:26), so too was the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of Titus Flavius of Rome the sign of the presence (parousia) of Christ in judgment upon Jerusalem in 70 AD.

 

[Stormcrow]

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.


I guess you can call The Apostle Paul a liar.


Revelation 11:2

But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

3 1/2 years of the great tribulation!


I guess you can call The Apostle John a liar also.


JLB

Because both Thessalonians and Revelation were written before 70 AD, while the Temple still stood, these passages you claim that are of a future temple actually refer to the one that was destroyed in 70 AD!!!

 

[Stormcrow]

I've been arguing all along that that is not what Jesus meant.

OK then, for clarifications sake, let's go back to what Jesus said and put His words "this generation" in context:

"But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you [His disciples; the men He was addressing] will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes. Matthew 10:23 (NASB)

"Truly I say to you [His disciples; the men He was addressing], there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:28 (NASB)

"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Matthew 23:34-36 (NASB)

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Matthew 24:34 (NASB)

It's clear that in every instance of the word "generation" used above, but especially in Matthew 24:34, the word "generation" is used to denote a group of people born into a single generation living at about the same time.

Races and "kinds" do not pass away in this context because if they did if they did, there would be no Jews alive today!

Your assertion from this post in response to the OP regarding Matthew 24:34 is that generation "is not always used as speaking of a group of people all living at the same time" is based on - in part - an example from Matthew 3:7.

I showed you in this post that the Greek word in Matthew 3:7 translated "generation" (in the KJ) is not the same Greek word translated "generation" in Matthew 24:34!

Here is the Greek word in Matthew 3:7:

Greek Word: γέννημα

Transliterated Word: gennêma
Root: from 1080;

Definition: offspring:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
brood (4).

And here it how it translated in the NASB:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Matthew 3:7 (NASB)

And here is the Greek word used in reference to the OP: Matthew 24:34 (and in Matthew 23:36, cited above):

Greek Word: γενεά

Transliterated Word: genea
Root: from 1096;

Definition: race, family, generation:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
generation (32),
generations (10),
kind (1).

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Matthew 24:34 (NASB)

Therefore, it's clear from the context of Matthew 24:34 He is literally saying "Before everyone belonging to this generation - those living at this time - is dead, all of these things will have taken place."

That's a vastly different meaning than what your answer implied in your first reply to the OP.

Did everyone in that generation die at the same time? Of course not, though many were killed in the war with Rome that destroyed Jerusalem! But did that entire generation die? OF COURSE IT DID, JUST AS EVERY GENERATION BEFORE AND SINCE HAS!!! And this is the meaning behind Matthew 24:34!!!

If you want to define evil doers, scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites as the kind of people who were specifically addressed as the subject of Christ's prophecies then yes, they were the kind of people judged in the events leading up to and including 70 AD.

But again, Matthew 24:34 is not addressing a kind of people but the time during which these people both lived and in which His prophecies would be fulfilled: that generation! And therein lies the source of the argument between us.

And Matthew 24:34 is the reason anyone in this thread is having this discussion in the first place!

Hope that clears up any confusion!

 

[felix]

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.


I guess you can call The Apostle Paul a liar.


Revelation 11:2

But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

3 1/2 years of the great tribulation!


I guess you can call The Apostle John a liar also.


JLB

Because both Thessalonians and Revelation were written before 70 AD while the Temple still stood these passages you claim that are of a future temple actually refer to the one that was destroyed in 70 AD!!!

You are not giving importance to the verses quoted by JLB or you are purposefully avoiding to answer.

The temple was "destroyed" in 70 AD and no abomination was ever recorded. You are purposefully ignoring "he sits as God in the temple of God". No one sat as God in the temple of God when the temple was getting destroyed in 70 AD. Neither was Jerusalem tread underfoot for 42 months. This is why you are making Paul and John a liar.

Please don't try to answer the questions there were not asked or replied.

 

[Stormcrow]

You are not giving importance to the verses quoted by JLB or you are purposefully avoiding to answer.

The temple was "destroyed" in 70 AD and no abomination was ever recorded. You are purposefully ignoring "he sits as God in the temple of God". No one sat as God in the temple of God when the temple was getting destroyed in 70 AD. Neither was Jerusalem tread underfoot for 42 months. This is why you are making Paul and John a liar.

Please don't try to answer the questions there were not asked or replied.

Answered here in a post I made about this very issue:

http://livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=prophecy&thread=448&post=10129

I believe John of Gischala is this "man of lawlessness" Paul writes about as coming to Jerusalem and indicated why I believe so in the link above. Here, however, is further evidence for this from Josephus:

Now as Josephus was thus engaged in the administration of the affairs of Galilee, there arose a treacherous person, a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, "whose name was John. His character was that of a very cunning and very knavish person, beyond the ordinary rate of the other men of eminence there, and for wicked practices he had not his fellow any where.

Poor he was at first, and for a long time his wants were a hinderance to him in his wicked designs. He was a ready liar, and yet very sharp in gaining credit to his fictions: he thought it a point of virtue to delude people, and would delude even such as were the dearest to him. He was a hypocritical pretender to humanity, but where he had hopes of gain, he spared not the shedding of blood: his desires were ever carried to great things, and he encouraged his hopes from those mean wicked tricks which he was the author of. He had a peculiar knack at thieving; but in some time he got certain companions in his impudent practices; at first they were but few, but as he proceeded on in his evil course, they became still more and more numerous.

Now this was the work of God, who therefore preserved this John, that he might bring on the destruction of Jerusalem;

But for John, he was very little concerned for those whom he had left behind him, but went about among all the people, and persuaded them to go to war, by the hopes he gave them.

By this time John was beginning to tyrannize, and thought it beneath him to accept of barely the same honors that others had; and joining to himself by degrees a party of the wickedest of them all, he broke off from the rest of the faction. This was brought about by his still disagreeing with the opinions of others, and giving out injunctions of his own, in a very imperious manner; so that it was evident he was setting up a monarchical power.But as for John, when he could no longer plunder the people, he betook himself to sacrilege, and melted down many of the sacred utensils, which had been given to the temple; as also many of those vessels which were necessary for such as ministered about holy things, the caldrons, the dishes, and the tables; nay, he did not abstain from those pouring vessels that were sent them by Augustus and his wife; for the Roman emperors did ever both honor and adorn this temple; whereas this man, who was a Jew, seized upon what were the donations of foreigners, and said to those that were with him, that it was proper for them to use Divine things, while they were fighting for the Divinity, without fear, and that such whose warfare is for the temple should live of the temple; on which account he emptied the vessels of that sacred wine and oil, which the priests kept to be poured on the burnt-offerings, and which lay in the inner court of the temple, and distributed it among the multitude, who, in their anointing themselves and drinking, used [each of them] above an hin of them.

And here I cannot but speak my mind, and what the concern I am under dictates to me, and it is this: I suppose, that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, that the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed.

Yet did John demonstrate by his actions that these Sicarii were more moderate than he was himself, for he not only slew all such as gave him good counsel to do what was right, but treated them worst of all, as the most bitter enemies that he had among all the Citizens;nay, he filled his entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness, such as a man who was already hardened sufficiently in his impiety towards God would naturally do

Certainly fills the bill as a "man of lawlessness" to me.

 

[Stormcrow]

no abomination was ever recorded.

And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy.

Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Hartford, CN: S. S. Scranton, 1905), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 849.

Roman soldiers offering pagan sacrifices to the graven images that comprised their ensigns on the desolated Holy ground of Mount Zion.

Nope. No abomination ever recorded in history. Nothing to see here. Move along.

But the number of calamities which then overwhelmed the whole nation; the extreme misery to which particularly the inhabitants of Judea were reduced, the vast numbers of men, with women and children that fell by the sword and famine, and innumerable other forms of death; the numerous and great cities of Judea that were besieged, as also the great and incredible distresses that those experienced who took refuge at Jerusalem, as to a place of perfect security; these facts, as well as the whole tenor of the war, and each particular of its progress, when finally, the abomination of desolation, according to the prophetic declaration, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, but which now was approaching its total down-fall and final destruction by fire; all this, I say, any one that wishes may see accurately stated in the history written by Josephus.

Eusebius Pamphilus, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 85-87.

Read Josephus' Wars of the Jews to understand how Christ's prophecies were all fulfilled before that generation had passed.

The problem in trying to understand that phrase "abomination of desolation" (which Luke defines for us, by the way) is not that there is a single abomination in the Temple back then, but dozens within the writings of Josephus alone!

But what does Josephus know? He only wrote as an eyewitness to the events that fulfilled Christ's prophecies to a "T".